Singling out something like melodic content and claiming it's the key to "meaning" in music is just silly. There are great compositions where the chord progression and rhythm are the chief source of interest. Erlkoenig, for example. Or how about Martin Carthy's rendition of "Famous Flower of Serving Men" on his Shearwater album? The melody is simple and consists of only a few notes, but what makes the song so gripping is the rhythmic interplay between the voice and accompaniment, as well as the sheer intensity of the words.

It doesn't take long to come up with examples of great music that isn't dependent solely on melody, and my guess is that this is because music consists of more than just a melody. If the harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic elements don't come together into some sort of satisfying combination, it's not good music. If the same three elements don't combine in a satisfying way with lyrics (which may or may not stand on their own as good poetry), it's not a good song.

And calling popular music "unmelodic" is ignorant in the extreme. The melodies may be repetitive and sound similar to one another (oh, but hello Irish music), but they are, by simple definition, melodies. How about the song that virtually every european should be sick of by now, "Dragostea Din Tea," which has an incredibly catchy (and strikingly simple) melodic hook. Or pull a Kelly Clarkson album off the shelf. What's she singing, if it's not "melody"? You may not LIKE the melody, or that type of melody, or you may find it uninspired, but claiming it isn't there is fatuous.